Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

restoredcdc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 195 posts

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#181

Post by novemp »

ciiiicii wrote: post #174
novemp wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because it would be unforgivably woke to acknowledge women as people.

No you've missed the point, which is that "people" includes both women and men. Men cannot be pregnant, which is obvious from the fact that male sexual development does not produce a female reproductive system. The term "pregnant people" is not just unnecessarily obfuscating but also linguistically erases the group of people who can actually be pregnant - that is, women.

My brother is a man who has been pregnant. His female reproductive system does not make him a woman. You are simply incorrect.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#182

Post by ciiiicii »

consteval wrote: post #179
ciiiicii wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about this logically. Consider a person. This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. Which means that this person must be a woman. Or, we can look at this from the other direction. Male sexual development does not result in a female reproductive system. Therefore this person is not a man. You can perform this exercise of logic with any species that ha…

> This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. No, no you can't. You can in 99% of circumstances, but not absolutely. They may also have a penis, or testicles, or any combination of reproductive organs. Yes, really. But even if you could assume this, which you can't, you ALSO can't assume that a female reproductive system makes a woman. Because gender is com…

If you are unaware that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system and that this is the process the female reproductive system in humans and most other mammals is specialized for, then I would very much recommend you learn more before attempting to discuss this topic. At the very least, please look up what a uterus is and its role in gestation.

As for your view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup", this is a remarkably sexist perspective and I would urge you to rethink your understanding on this as well.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#183

Post by ciiiicii »

novemp wrote: post #181
ciiiicii wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you've missed the point, which is that "people" includes both women and men. Men cannot be pregnant, which is obvious from the fact that male sexual development does not produce a female reproductive system. The term "pregnant people" is not just unnecessarily obfuscating but also linguistically erases the group of people who can actually be pregnant - that is, women.

My brother is a man who has been pregnant. His female reproductive system does not make him a woman. You are simply incorrect.

[flagged]

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#184

Post by novemp »

ciiiicii wrote: post #183
novemp wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My brother is a man who has been pregnant. His female reproductive system does not make him a woman. You are simply incorrect.

[flagged]

Wow, you know my family better than I do! Are you psychic?

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#185

Post by consteval »

ciiiicii wrote: post #182
consteval wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. No, no you can't. You can in 99% of circumstances, but not absolutely. They may also have a penis, or testicles, or any combination of reproductive organs. Yes, really. But even if you could assume this, which you can't, you ALSO can't assume that a female reproductive system makes a woman. Because gender is com…

If you are unaware that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system and that this is the process the female reproductive system in humans and most other mammals is specialized for, then I would very much recommend you learn more before attempting to discuss this topic. At the very least, please look up what a uterus is and its role in gestation. As for your view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup", this is…

You’re being purposefully dishonest, as none of this is what I’ve said. You can’t just ignore what I wrote and fill in something that is easier for you to argue - this makes you look unbelievably stupid.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#186

Post by ciiiicii »

consteval wrote: post #185
ciiiicii wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are unaware that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system and that this is the process the female reproductive system in humans and most other mammals is specialized for, then I would very much recommend you learn more before attempting to discuss this topic. At the very least, please look up what a uterus is and its role in gestation. As for your view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup", this is…

You’re being purposefully dishonest, as none of this is what I’ve said. You can’t just ignore what I wrote and fill in something that is easier for you to argue - this makes you look unbelievably stupid.

I wrote: "This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system."

You replied with: "No, no you can't."

From this, it is reasonable to assume that you either you don't understand that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system, or that you don't understand what the female reproductive system is.

You wrote: "You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things."

From that, it is reasonable to assume that you have a view of women based on sexist stereotyping around clothes, hair and makeup.

If you don't like the ideas that your words convey, that's on you for writing them.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#187

Post by ciiiicii »

novemp wrote: post #184
ciiiicii wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wow, you know my family better than I do! Are you psychic?

You described a sibling with a female reproductive system, who has been pregnant. This means that your sibling must be a woman.

That you refer to her as your brother rather than your sister implies that she calls herself a man, and that because she calls herself a man you have chosen to do the same.

You are of course free to immerse yourself in the fiction that she is a man, and make self-contradictory statements like "my brother is a man who has been pregnant." But it would be odd to expect others to agree with this, seeing as it is not based in reality.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#188

Post by novemp »

ciiiicii wrote: post #187
novemp wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you know my family better than I do! Are you psychic?

You described a sibling with a female reproductive system, who has been pregnant. This means that your sibling must be a woman. That you refer to her as your brother rather than your sister implies that she calls herself a man, and that because she calls herself a man you have chosen to do the same. You are of course free to immerse yourself in the fiction that she is a man, and make self-contradictory statements lik…

> This means that your sibling must be a woman.

It doesn't. As you've been told already, you're wrong about this.

> But it would be odd to expect others to agree with this, seeing as it is not based in reality.

Fortunately for my brother and the countless other trans people in this world, scientific consensus is on their side. You and those in power right now might disagree, but your kind has been defeated before and will be defeated again.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#189

Post by novemp »

ciiiicii wrote: post #186
consteval wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re being purposefully dishonest, as none of this is what I’ve said. You can’t just ignore what I wrote and fill in something that is easier for you to argue - this makes you look unbelievably stupid.

I wrote: "This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system." You replied with: "No, no you can't." From this, it is reasonable to assume that you either you don't understand that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system, or that you don't understand what the female reproductive system is. You wrote: "You understand she is a woman because of the societal co…

> You wrote: "You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things."

> From that, it is reasonable to assume that you have a view of women based on sexist stereotyping around clothes, hair and makeup.

The person you are responding to was identifying the markers that cause the average person to make a snap decision on whether someone is a "he" or a "she" when encountering complete strangers on a day to day basis. If you don't use these factors to determine how you would address a person you've never met, what do you use? Do you demand to see their genitals or birth certificate?

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#190

Post by ciiiicii »

novemp wrote: post #188
ciiiicii wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You described a sibling with a female reproductive system, who has been pregnant. This means that your sibling must be a woman. That you refer to her as your brother rather than your sister implies that she calls herself a man, and that because she calls herself a man you have chosen to do the same. You are of course free to immerse yourself in the fiction that she is a man, and make self-contradictory statements lik…

> This means that your sibling must be a woman. It doesn't. As you've been told already, you're wrong about this. > But it would be odd to expect others to agree with this, seeing as it is not based in reality. Fortunately for my brother and the countless other trans people in this world, scientific consensus is on their side. You and those in power right now might disagree, but your kind has been defeated before and…

Getting back to the point of the thread, it's fine if you want to hold the personal belief that your sister is your brother. No-one is stopping you from that, nor should they. You could believe she's a cat and gave birth to a litter of kittens if you like. That is your freedom of belief.

However, the CDC should have its focus in reality, not fiction. If a woman says she's a man, she does not somehow transform into a man. This is a nonsensical belief.

It's a bit like Catholics believing that bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Fine for them to hold that fictional belief if they want to, but it would look ridiculous if the CDC published this within their hematology resources as if it's a fact.

To state that men can be pregnant is incorrect, and has no scientific consensus. The male reproductive system is incapable of pregnancy. You can try to "defeat" this but it's a losing battle, as it is plainly false.

Post reply on HN